Delhi District Court
Sh. Gurdeep Singh vs Ms. Harjeet Kaur on 23 May, 2015
IN THE COURT OF SH. RAVINDER SINGH
ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE OF SHAHDARA DISTRICT
AT KARKARDOOMA COURTS: DELHI.
MCA no. 18/2015
Unique I.D No. 02402C0146522015
Sh. Gurdeep Singh
S/o late Sh. Surjeet Singh
R/o B-46, East Krishna Nagar,
Delhi.
............... Appellant
Versus
1. Ms. Harjeet Kaur
R/o 374, Maidan Garhi,
Indira Gandhi Open University,
New Delhi.
Present address:-
H.No. 855, Nyaykhan-I,
Indirapuram, Ghaziabad, UP.
2. Ms. Gurpreet Kaur
W/o Sardar Sarpal Singh
R/o B-46, East Krishna Nagar,
Delhi-110051.
3. Sh. Sukhvinder Singh
S/o Sardar Sarpal Singh
R/o B-46, East Krishna Nagar,
Delhi-110051.
........ Respondents
Date of Institution : 30/04/2015
Order reserved on : 23/05/2015
Order passed on : 23/05/2015
MCA no.18/2015 Sh. Gurdeep Singh v. Ms. Harjeet Kaur and ors. Page no. 1 of 6
APPEAL FOR SETTING ASIDE JUDGEMENT /ORDER AND
DECREE DATED 07/04/2015 PASSED BY LD. SENIOR CIVIL
JUDGE /RENT CONTROLLER (SHAHDARA),
KARKARDOOMA, DELHI.
JUDGMENT
This is an appeal filed by Sh. Gurdeep Singh (appellant) for setting aside the order dated 07/04/2015 passed in execution petition bearing Ex. no. 21/2013 titled as 'Harjeet Kaur v. Gurpreet Kaur and ors.' by Ld. Additional Senior Civil Judge (Shahdara), Karkardooma, Delhi (for short 'the impugned order').
2. The respondents were served with notice of the appeal, however, no reply to appeal was filed by them. The record of the execution petition no. 21/2013 was summoned.
3. I have heard the arguments of Ld. Counsel of appellant and respondents and perused the material on the record.
4. Appellant in his application under Order 21 Rule 97 CPC filed before Ld. Executing court stated that he is absolute lawful owner and title holder of suit property & he has been in settled peaceful possession since 1974 as his father late Surjit Singh purchased the suit property for consideration of Rs.1,800/- from Jai Narayan and Shanti Narayan & raised construction. He further stated that suit property is forming part of Khasra no. 1048/824/3 Mauja Chandrawali @ Shahdara, Chandrawati MCA no.18/2015 Sh. Gurdeep Singh v. Ms. Harjeet Kaur and ors. Page no. 2 of 6 Delhi. Appellant also stated that complete chain of documents is not traceable as of now as misplaced somewhere. Appellant also stated that daughter of JD no. 1 & real sister of JD no. 2 fell in love with him. So, he solemnized his marriage without the consent of their parents and he shifted his residence far away from the suit property to save his life, but after family settlement, he has been carrying on his business of property dealing in the name & style of M/s. Singh Properties in front portion of suit property & rear portion is under tenancy of Bhatia Tent House. Appellant also stated that plaintiff, defendant & trial court did not implead him as a necessary and proper party.
5. Admittedly, Ms. Harjeet Kaur (plaintiff), the respondent no. 1 herein had filed a suit for recovery of possession and mesne profit in respect of property bearing no. B-46, East Krishna Nagar, Delhi-110051 ad-measuring 150 sq. yds. (for short 'the suit property') against Ms. Gurpreet Kaur (D-1), Sonu @ Sukhvinder Singh (D-2) & Amanpreet Kaur (D-3). The said suit was decreed vide judgement and decree dated 05/02/2013 by the Ld. Trial Court.
6. Defendants preferred appeal against the said judgment, which was dismissed vide order dated 09/10/2013. Thereafter, defendants preferred Regular Second Appeal before the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi, which was also dismissed with cost of Rs.30,000/- vide order dated 24/01/2014.
7. It is pleaded by appellant that his wife is the daughter of JD no. 1 MCA no.18/2015 Sh. Gurdeep Singh v. Ms. Harjeet Kaur and ors. Page no. 3 of 6 and sister of JD no. 2 so appellant is in close relationship of JDs no.1 & 2. It is not the case of the appellant that his relationship with his in laws are strange and no talking terms. So considering the facts, it is hard to believe that appellant has no knowledge about litigation which are going on with his in laws for last many years.
8. Appellant claimed that suit property was purchased by his father late Sh. Surjit Singh from Jai Narayan and Shanti Narayan on a payment of Rs.1,800/- in the year 1974. Admittedly, appellant claimed that documents have been misplaced and not traceable. I examined the appellant under Section 165 of the Indian Evidence Act. The relevant questions & its answers are as under:-
"Q.4 Did you also live alongwith your father? A. I was also living with my father in the aforesaid property from 1974 till 1982.
Q.5 What is your qualification? A. I am tenth passed.
Q. 6 Do you know the address of your primary school/ the school in which you studied upto primary level?
A. I do not know the address of the school. Q.7 Do you possess any document qua your qualification upto primary level? A. I do not have any document.
Q.8 Do you possess any document showing the possession of your father during 1974 to 1982 in the suit property?
A. I do not possess any such document."
9. Appellant has no document to show the title of his father in respect MCA no.18/2015 Sh. Gurdeep Singh v. Ms. Harjeet Kaur and ors. Page no. 4 of 6 of the suit property. Further appellant has no document to show that he or his father ever resided in the suit property. It is very strange that the family of appellant was residing in property eight years i.e. from year of purchase 1974 till 1982, but the appellant has no document in that regard. It is pertinent to mention that appellant filed his appeal alongwith affidavit, wherein he has shown himself to be resident of suit property i.e. B-46, Krishna Nagar, Delhi, but while examination in court under Section 165 of Indian Evidence Act, he disclosed his residential address as '1064/10, Govind Puri, Delhi'. It is clear that appellant has never resided in the suit property. The Ld. Executing court considered each and every contention of appellant raised before this court and I am of the considered opinion that the Ld. Executing court rightly reached to the conclusion holding that-
"d) The objector has not filed any documents to show ownership over the suit property. The objector has conveniently claimed that the said documents have been misplaced and not traceable now.
However, the objector has not disclosed as to when those alleged title documents were misplaced and what steps did he take in this regard. The submissions are devoid of substance.
e) Interestingly, the objector has filed electricity bills to support his case. If anything, it goes against the objector. The bills are in the name of JD no. 1 who had contested the suit till highest court and lost resulting in present execution petition."
10. Ld. Counsel for appellant during course of arguments relied on judgement titled as Indira Transport v. Rattan Lal AIR 1998 Delhi 2. I MCA no.18/2015 Sh. Gurdeep Singh v. Ms. Harjeet Kaur and ors. Page no. 5 of 6 have carefully gone through this judgement, but same is not applicable to the facts of present appeal.
11. In view of aforesaid discussion, I find no infirmity or illegality in the order of Ld. Executing court while dismissing the objections of appellant under Section 21 Rule 97 CPC. The appeal is without any merit. Accordingly, same is dismissed. Interim order dated 07/05/2015 is vacated.
12. Appeal file be consigned to record room. Execution file be sent back to the court concerned with copy of this order.
Announced in the (RAVINDER SINGH)
open court Additional District Judge:
on 23/05/2015 Shahdara District:
Court no. 11
Karkardooma, Delhi.
MCA no.18/2015 Sh. Gurdeep Singh v. Ms. Harjeet Kaur and ors. Page no. 6 of 6